pungtryne wrote:Yes, actually, all players could agree on turn 1 to ally, and this way, all would win peacefully.

You're not making sense. Firstly, what is "win"? Secondly, all can't "win" in any sense. Someone will alwys have more cities, territory, population, points and/or will build a spaceship.

Win is victory as defined by the game. This is either to first land spaceship on alpha centauri, or to be alone, or allied to, everyone left in the game. If the end year of the game comes and none of these conditions are met, the player with most points will be declared winner.

However this is a very unlikely scenario, and probably not what most people want.

And what is it that most people want?

From my experience with the game, there are a considerable amount that don't want to cooperate with anyone, and a significant amount that want to cooperate some. I don't think anyone wants to ally every single person on the map and send out 50+ diplomats to everyone.

No one with ambitions of staying in the game can choose to play peacefully. Being pacifist and having no defence will just get way too tempting for someone else. A country defending against an invasion is not peacefull, but in war.

Pacifism has nothing to do with non-aggression. You can be peaceful and in war, simply because you were attacked and you choose not to roll over and die.

I think we are talking about different things and therefore misunderstanding. You are talking about peacefull intentions, while I'm talking about the state of peacefullnes. These are not the same thing. Being in a state of peacefullness implies no war. The state of peacefullness and war is opposites like hot and cold. A peacefull nation can't be in war, because if it's in war even just for defending itself, it's no longer peacefull. There is a war taking place in that country! But of course, a country in war can wish for peace.

A country being invaded can choose to defend, or they can take the pacifist approach of non-violence. Pacifism is technicalily not non-agression but non-violence is pretty close, and I would think some adherents to eastern philosophies might call agression and violence the same thing.

pungtryne wrote:Yes, actually, all players could agree on turn 1 to ally, and this way, all would win peacefully.

You're not making sense. Firstly, what is "win"? Secondly, all can't "win" in any sense. Someone will alwys have more cities, territory, population, points and/or will build a spaceship.

Win is victory as defined by the game. This is either to first land spaceship on alpha centauri, or to be alone, or allied to, everyone left in the game. If the end year of the game comes and none of these conditions are met, the player with most points will be declared winner.

[/quote]...and therefore, there is no way for "everybody to win".

I don't think anyone wants to ally every single person on the map and send out 50+ diplomats to everyone.

I absolutely agree. However, nobody said that so I'm not sure who you are debating with.

Pacifism has nothing to do with non-aggression. You can be peaceful and in war, simply because you were attacked and you choose not to roll over and die.

I think we are talking about different things and therefore misunderstanding. You are talking about peacefull intentions, while I'm talking about the state of peacefullnes. These are not the same thing. Being in a state of peacefullness implies no war. The state of peacefullness and war is opposites like hot and cold. A peacefull nation can't be in war, because if it's in war even just for defending itself, it's no longer peacefull. There is a war taking place in that country! But of course, a country in war can wish for peace.

A country being invaded can choose to defend, or they can take the pacifist approach of non-violence. Pacifism is technicalily not non-agression but non-violence is pretty close, and I would think some adherents to eastern philosophies might call agression and violence the same thing.

[/quote]"Peaceful" is an adjective being attached to a person or a group or a whatever and describing its general disposition in handling things, not some abstract and ideal concept of "never harming anybody". There is no "state of peacefulnes", there may be "state of peace" that heavily depends on all participants. There is a whole spectrum between pacifist and aggressive and no, on a scale 0 to 100 "peaceful" doesn't stop at 0.001. You can be peaceful and still defend yourself against aggression. "Peaceful" is a personal characteristic regardless of situation, "at peace" is a state of affairs.

Corbeau wrote:You're not making sense. Firstly, what is "win"? Secondly, all can't "win" in any sense. Someone will alwys have more cities, territory, population, points and/or will build a spaceship.

Win is victory as defined by the game. This is either to first land spaceship on alpha centauri, or to be alone, or allied to, everyone left in the game. If the end year of the game comes and none of these conditions are met, the player with most points will be declared winner.

...and therefore, there is no way for "everybody to win".

Allied victory is defined as victory, even though scores are different.

I don't think anyone wants to ally every single person on the map and send out 50+ diplomats to everyone.

I absolutely agree. However, nobody said that so I'm not sure who you are debating with.

To win in peacefullness, that's what you need to do.

Pacifism has nothing to do with non-aggression. You can be peaceful and in war, simply because you were attacked and you choose not to roll over and die.

I think we are talking about different things and therefore misunderstanding. You are talking about peacefull intentions, while I'm talking about the state of peacefullnes. These are not the same thing. Being in a state of peacefullness implies no war. The state of peacefullness and war is opposites like hot and cold. A peacefull nation can't be in war, because if it's in war even just for defending itself, it's no longer peacefull. There is a war taking place in that country! But of course, a country in war can wish for peace.

A country being invaded can choose to defend, or they can take the pacifist approach of non-violence. Pacifism is technicalily not non-agression but non-violence is pretty close, and I would think some adherents to eastern philosophies might call agression and violence the same thing.

"Peaceful" is an adjective being attached to a person or a group or a whatever and describing its general disposition in handling things, not some abstract and ideal concept of "never harming anybody". There is no "state of peacefulnes", there may be "state of peace" that heavily depends on all participants. There is a whole spectrum between pacifist and aggressive and no, on a scale 0 to 100 "peaceful" doesn't stop at 0.001. You can be peaceful and still defend yourself against aggression. "Peaceful" is a personal characteristic regardless of situation, "at peace" is a state of affairs.

You are talking about one of the definitions of peaceful, a disposition a person or nations or cultures can have towards non-agression. Peaceful does of course also mean a state of rest, non-confict, peace. For example, if we talk about "it's a peacefull day", then we don't antropomorphise "day", giving it the human attribute of a disposition towards tranquillity. No, we mean that the it's quiet, tranquille, nothing happening. Have a look at oxford dictionary for example. Peaceful as state is the main definition, while peaceful as a disposition comes farther down.

When we say "Switzerland is a peaceful country" this means that the swiss have a disposition towards peace, and that Switzerland is in a state of peace. If one of these conditions fall, for example, Switzerland being in state of peace, but preparing for war, Switzerland can no longer be said to be peaceful. On the other han, Syria isn't a peaceful country, no matter how much it's inhabitants or government might or might not want peace.

Peaceful defense would be pasificm in hope that the enemy won't kill peacefull people. You can't say "I peacefully defended myself against my enemy by shooting all his troops" because shooting and killing something isn't compatible with peace. But of course, one can say that the military action was justified according to whatever morale code one is following.

--------------------------------------------------------

BACK TO TOPIC

What I wanted to point out is that the whole discussoin theme here isn't appropiate for this game. The article that is being refered to, among other things, is about wheter to include "cruelty" or not in a game. By the articles definition of "cruelty" Freeciv is a cruel game. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss really because we play freeciv because we like these cruel elements (taking cities from other players, killing their units, betraying, conspiring against someone etc.).

Cheating, harrasing and things like that are a whole different issue, and is not a "cruel" element as defined in the article.

There have been longturn.org games where people have managed to survive the entire game without killing any enemy units and sometimes even win the game after doing that. That's something not easy to do because in those games there have been lots of wars all around the map.

On those games the victory conditions are usually changed between the games. In most cases the winners just announce on the forum that they have won and if no one (alive) objects, the game ends and they win. If someone objects, the game continues. This has been reasonably good system since it allows the allied players to sacrifice most of their nation for the alliance and still win the game.

Many many different ways of winning. Some more "cruel" than others. Maybe the most cruel was the one where everyone else had to be wiped out for winning the game

We usually start only one LT game at a time but next time we will start two because we thought that the players could choose the playing style they wish to try. One game (LT39) will be a classic allied victory game where the winners will probably wipe out everyone else. The other one (LT40) is a game with a citymindist 6 and with *lots* of land for each player while adding strict empire size limts. This is kind of game with 2x moves even while the moves are really 3x. The bigger map just makes it effectively 2x. You need more moves to move between cities. Should be "less cruel" even for those who want to just play sim city. Not cruelty free but less than a standard civ2civ3

Pungtryne, you can discuss semantics all you want, but as long as you refuse to acknowledge that "peaceful" in "peaceful day" and "peaceful" in "peaceful person" are two pretty different categories and that you can't use one to explain the other, you are simply talking rubbish. And it's getting really annoyimg because it boils down to one thing: you are trying to justify your aggressiveness by pointing out that whoever is actively defending from your aggression is also aggressive (because if he wasn't aggressive, if he was "peaceful", he wouldn't defend himself by fighting) and is therefore same as you and therefore there is nothing morally wrong with you attacking him because you two are the same.

Well, no. You are not the same. You are attacking, he is defending. Stop with the verbal acrobatics, you'll sprain something.

pungtryne wrote:Freeciv is a cruel game. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss really because we play freeciv because we like these cruel elements (taking cities from other players, killing their units, betraying, conspiring against someone

No, we don't. "We" don't play Civ because of that. Maybe you do, but "we" are not you. We are not same.

Corbeau wrote:Pungtryne, you can discuss semantics all you want, but as long as you refuse to acknowledge that "peaceful" in "peaceful day" and "peaceful" in "peaceful person" are two pretty different categories and that you can't use one to explain the other, you are simply talking rubbish. And it's getting really annoyimg because it boils down to one thing: you are trying to justify your aggressiveness by pointing out that whoever is actively defending from your aggression is also aggressive (because if he wasn't aggressive, if he was "peaceful", he wouldn't defend himself by fighting) and is therefore same as you and therefore there is nothing morally wrong with you attacking him because you two are the same.

Well, no. You are not the same. You are attacking, he is defending. Stop with the verbal acrobatics, you'll sprain something.

I'm simply stating the obvious that one simply cannot be peacefull and in war at the same time. It's as impossible as something being hot and cold.

I'm aggressive in the game simply by having built miltiary units, and so are you.

pungtryne wrote:Freeciv is a cruel game. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss really because we play freeciv because we like these cruel elements (taking cities from other players, killing their units, betraying, conspiring against someone

No, we don't. "We" don't play Civ because of that. Maybe you do, but "we" are not you. We are not same.

You would prefer to not have military units, diplomats or spies in the game? Because all those are units that enable "cruel" interactions, as defined by the article. Also, the possibility to form alliances enable these "cruel" interactions. Whole idea of the game of Freeciv is to enable these cruel interactions to be possible to happen.

Corbeau wrote:Pungtryne, you can discuss semantics all you want, but as long as you refuse to acknowledge that "peaceful" in "peaceful day" and "peaceful" in "peaceful person" are two pretty different categories and that you can't use one to explain the other, you are simply talking rubbish. And it's getting really annoyimg because it boils down to one thing: you are trying to justify your aggressiveness by pointing out that whoever is actively defending from your aggression is also aggressive (because if he wasn't aggressive, if he was "peaceful", he wouldn't defend himself by fighting) and is therefore same as you and therefore there is nothing morally wrong with you attacking him because you two are the same.

Well, no. You are not the same. You are attacking, he is defending. Stop with the verbal acrobatics, you'll sprain something.

I'm simply stating the obvious that one simply cannot be peacefull and in war at the same time. It's as impossible as something being hot and cold.

I'm aggressive in the game simply by having built miltiary units, and so are you.

pungtryne wrote:Freeciv is a cruel game. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss really because we play freeciv because we like these cruel elements (taking cities from other players, killing their units, betraying, conspiring against someone

No, we don't. "We" don't play Civ because of that. Maybe you do, but "we" are not you. We are not same.

You would prefer to not have military units, diplomats or spies in the game? Because all those are units that enable "cruel" interactions, as defined by the article. Also, the possibility to form alliances enable these "cruel" interactions. Whole idea of the game of Freeciv is to enable these cruel interactions to be possible to happen.

Having a capibility to defend yourself isn't the same as aggression. You're not understanding how English works in this. (or you're brainwashed by Russian propaganda )

So long as I stay out of your terrority. Do not spy on you. Do not try to break apart your alliances. Do not attack your units or block your units in neutral land then I'm not aggressive.

weider wrote:At the moment we are running a two team game where new players can learn from the veterans. Games like that help to understand how important allying and human interaction is.

Yes, that's one good idea. Chaotic war between many colour-chaning parties will disappear. This should lead to much more honest player-player interaction and one more time war (and economy of war) becomes the main focal point of the game. In the chaotic war of everyone against everyone, politics/betrayal is the dominant theme. I think the idea is worth trying.

adjective1.characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder:a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration.2.of, relating to, or characteristic of a state or time of peace.3.peaceable; not argumentative, quarrelsome, or hostile: characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder:

Sure, peaceful can be used as an attitude towards soemthing, but the main definition is clearly a state. Stop acting so arrogant. If you were a little more humble you wouldn't have made af fool of yourself.

Also, why don't you play a modified freeciv without "cruel" interactions, if you aren't here for them? I'm sure it would be pretty easy to take away military units, diplomats, spies, diplomacy and just have a sim-city like game.

For my part I'm here in the game because I want to play a 4x strategy game where people can conquer, kill, betray, lie, decive, form alliances and all that make the dynamics so fascinating. This does not mean that I'm going to use, or endorse all possibilities, but that they exist make this game so interesting.

Having a capibility to defend yourself isn't the same as aggression. You're not understanding how English works in this. (or you're brainwashed by Russian propaganda )

So long as I stay out of your terrority. Do not spy on you. Do not try to break apart your alliances. Do not attack your units or block your units in neutral land then I'm not aggressive.

Having military units are certainly not pacifist. It shows will to use non-peacefull means. You haven't necesarilly showed agression to anyone specific, but neighbouring countries sure will start wondering if they see a big army. It's really about balance. As long as there is balance, countries can get along well, but if someone starts building more military units than the other, to get an advantage, that's certainly agressive. Both USA and Russia knows this, so it's as much US-brainwash than it's Russia-brainwash.